Okay, so why didn't BMW just go ahead and put in a 15% reduction pulley (from present factory spec) and set up the software to handle 18.5 PSI?

I'm being a bit flip, but I do want to have a serious discussion. Any time you modify from stock, you are of course making different trade offs in the engineering of the vehicle than those made by the original engineers. What are those trade offs? More heat raising the possibility of destructive pre-ignition? Less fuel efficiency (not the same as less mileage, which you'll see too of course)? Shorter engine life due to higher stresses? Emmisions? "Streetability"? Sporty vs. Monster?

Anyhow, what do you think are the key balances that made the engineers use the size they choose? (Why not go for a 20% reduction pulley and 22 PSI?)

Nothing is perfect, but what makes the stock size stock, and the 15% size what we all want?

I will no doubt install one myself some time in the future, but I think I'll wait to see what kind of software adventures shape up. No money right now anyhow, but this is a big part of what I bought the car for.

Thanks for all the info!

 

What are the trade offs? About $200. $450 with installation. Seriously though, I made my points about it already under my review of the JCW kit thread. You can read my comments and others' there.

JCW Kit Review

 

Minae,

I get what your asking. It wouldn't have cost BMW/MINI any more to produce the S with a 15% smaller pulley, so why didn't they?

I doubt it's a mechanical issue. Given that the "warranted" JCW kit uses the pulley without any other heat reduction or engine saving features, I would think there's likely no long term reliability issue.

My thought is that it's all about marketing.

Call me flip, or pessimistic, but it may well have been to leave a little something on the table for the $5000+ JCW upgrade to have. Were it not for the pulley, the JCW kit would probably be good for half the HP increase and close to none of the torque increase. The stock car with 163 HP has more than enough power for probably 80% of its buyers, and demand way outstrips supply at this point. You know there's going to be an aggressive aftermarket for the other 20% of us. So you leave a little room for improvement, let the excitement start to build in the aftermarket, then release your own factory warranted "aftermarket" conversion.

There may also have been broader line issues. It would be embarrassing if the littlest BMW (MINI) turned out faster than the the new 1 series or the smaller displacement 3 series cars. Okay for a special edition like the JCW with a total MSRP closer to $30k, but not in a base model under $20k.

Given all the feedback I've read here and the recently released details of the JCW kit, my ONLY reservation about the pulley is the cancelled warranty part.

Just my $0.02

Cheers,

James

 

Minae,

Great questions. Here are a few of the answers in my opinion:

1. If BMW had done it from the start, a hot rod couldn't have been marketed as easily.

2. The difference in power from the Cooper to the S was significant enough with a 50 horsepower difference.

3. The car already needs a bigger rear swaybar - so going with another 20 or so horsepower only exacerbates the situation (and I'm really surprised by the way that the JCW kit doesn't come with a LSD or even a swaybar).

4. The monster vs. sporty is probably the closest to hitting the nail on the head.

I really think it was more of a marketing decision, especially with the 1 series slated to come here and the JCW always on the planner.

You do create more heat, but I haven't seen any issues arising from that. I think if I were to do the JCW kit it would look more like this:

The pulley, the ECU, the exhaust and the intake along with a rear swaybar and a limited slip, maybe some sportier springs and a different brake pad compound. Just my opinion - and I'm not the Works engineers.

Randy

_________________

Click It!

 

Wow James - we posted at the exact same minute - great minds

 

>>Wow James - we posted at the exact same minute - great minds


And we said almost the same thing.

 

>>
>>You do create more heat, but I haven't seen any issues arising from that. I think if I were to do the JCW kit it would look more like this:
>>
>>The pulley, the ECU, the exhaust and the intake along with a rear swaybar and a limited slip, maybe some sportier springs and a different brake pad compound. Just my opinion - and I'm not the Works engineers.
>>
>>Randy
>>

You forgot the intercooler! Water cooled!

You list is pretty much mine. G Stock this year, STX next? (Resist the evil voice: "don't worry about that ECU upgrade".)

So basically, we all think the car runs as if it was built to have that 15% pulley (not a 20% however), but that was just too much bang for the buck? Boy, we are a cynical bunch...

 

Just turned 18K and my super charger went south. My coop was driven on the hwy for about 15K of the 18K on the odometer. If your super charger goes out as after this mod, you are cooked !

I was Mini-Less for 10 days and it was a battle to get Mini to warranty my super charger after installing a bosst guage. God help you if you install a new pulley at the belt.

Read my forum.

Kesh420

 

Hi Kesh420

I read about your troubles with your dealer in an other post. Seems to me that RSpeed did a very nice job in helping you out, they seem like a great group of people. Did the dealer give you a peek @ the whole that they claimed was in the side of the SC? Any idea what was the cause of the trouble was? Any Post Mortum?

 

I agree that the choice of HP for the S is driven by marketing and the analysis by others above are right on. This is very much the way the industry is run. Just look at the Boxster S; it is has a smaller engine purely to keep its power distant from the much more expenive 911; if it had the same engine it would walk all over a 911 for $20K less!

It's all about marketing :smile: Heck, the only reason 911's and their predecessors have the engine in the rear rather than in the middle, as they should be :smile:, is because of marketing; they realized they could sell more cars if the kiddies and golf bags can be jammed into a rear seat, so the motor was turned around and Porsche engineers have spent an eternity trying to make that silly engine layout work as well as it does!

Marketing, marketing, marketing.

BTW - How much do y'all want to bet that a good chunk for that price for the JCW kit goes to BMW for damage claim insurance in case the kit does cause some damage in a few cars?! I don't mean to scare anyone into thinking the pulley is a bad idea, but anytime you add power to an engine there is a risk that a few cars will have failures that might not have happened otherwise. There are may possible manufacturing faults that might survive 163HP forever, but 200HP might take them beyond their limits and they can fail. That is the trade off of increasing the power beyond what has been thoroughly tested by BMW; whether you use the pulley to do it or otherwise.

 

I agree about marketing and also for the 163 HP,

Why the company would take risks of bad reputation due to engine failure? In original design, one should consider that the product is foolproof (kid...).

When pully, intake, ecu and all mods done, the car is not kidproof anymore, it just needs to be cared of in someway.

I prefer to pay 1500$ for a mod than 2000$ more originally (warranty and parts) and an increase of 500$ per year for insurance.

I feel that the present situation is a very good deal and that the engine should perform well if properly taken care of...no excess with cold engine etc..everybody knows

Good work guys, I should be able to drive a fantastic car within a short time.

Guy

 

>>Okay, so why didn't BMW just go ahead and put in a 15% reduction pulley (from present factory spec) and set up the software to handle 18.5 PSI?

Probably for the same reason VW intro'd the 1.8T at 150Hp (2002+ models have 180Hp)... Car makers need room for improvements in future models to keep sales going.

 

Everyone has a conspiracy theory.

Since this is an entirely new platform it is reasonable to estimate that they opted for a more conservative setup so that their brand new baby didn't get hammered with a reliability black eye because of massive recalls from over-stressed supercharger or engine failures. That maybe after watching how the car was holding up in mass production and deployment they had the opportunity to work out the remaining assembly line glitches and start to truly tweak the car's performance safely for all.

Of course they could all just be out to get us

Jim

 

[back to our regularly scheduled thread]

I'd like to see an MCS with 100k+ miles on a pulley, with no engine problems. This would put to rest any long-term myths, regardless if the engine may or may-not run rich......but speaking of rich....

--->Randy, put it down one last time for everyone to read: is installing only the pulley safe for long-term reliability, or is it more appropriate for long-term (if you "Need" to have the pulley) both the pulley and ECU upgrade?
I'm a bit confused on the whole "running rich" ordeal.

[scratches head]
Ryan

 

there is a more ideal and leaner than present AF ratio for generating max power, whether you have the pulley or not, whether you are talking about full or part throttle. The trade off in leaning the mix is that if you go too lean, you might burn valves and pistons (but that is leaner than the max power point anyway). Typically, more fuel than can be combusted (too rich an AF), will enhance cooling, waste gas, tend to wash away cylinder wall oiling, and produce less than max power and is generally the more conservative approach.

If you add the pulley, which intakes more air over the rpm range: at partial throttle, the ecu will compensate real time and maintain the same AF as without the pulley; at WOT, the ecu can only control fuel mix by reading values from a lookup table. If those values were already lean, you would be over-leaning the mix. However, they are way too rich, so the extra air supplied by the pulley leans the mix, but not too much. what the ECU mod does is lean the mix table even more.

 

>>[back to our regularly scheduled thread]
>>
>>I'd like to see an MCS with 100k+ miles on a pulley, with no engine problems. This would put to rest any long-term myths, regardless if the engine may or may-not run rich......but speaking of rich....
>>Ryan

I'll let you know the answer if you are willing to wait three years. Randy did my pully on Sunday. I have 23k miles, do 24k/year and expect to still have the MCS when I hit 100k during 2006. Part of the reliability depends on how you drive. I'm not worried about reliability - the car is my daily driver and I don't drive it hard - I wanted the pully for the occasional big grin passing blasts. If your normal driving is under 5500rpm then the pully will stess your car less than another driver with a stock car who always pushes it to the limit.

 

very true Keith!
also, thanks for the insight jlm :smile: